If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

while...I'm just wondering...it's kinda slow down the fast pace development of linux...you see....recently...MS just recently their 2003 server...and now...SCO had to come out with such an issue.. so...I really hope everything can be solved quickly..cuz till this stage of the forum...I still can't really figure out what excatly is SCO is bringing up the case..what's is their case...I'm rather confuse...

I think the key to shutting their mouth is the fact that they released a Linux distro. Assume that their claim is, in fact, true and the kernel is full of code pulled directly from proprietary "Unix" sources. If they released a Linux distro under the GPL, they essentially blessed the open source release of their "intellectual property". If they did it themselves, they can't exactly go whining that IBM ripped them off.

An analogy - I leave my house unlocked with a sign out front that says "House is open. Take what you like." I come home and everything is gone, but I clearly gave everyone permission to clean me out. Well, I find out that the richest man in town has my throw rug. Simply because he's the deepest pocket around doesn't mean I can sue him for theft. I gave everyone permission to have something.

So, it's irrelevant if their code is in Linux - they gave it away freely, so it doesn't matter how it got in there. Their suit is as stupid as it would be if Richard Stallman sued IBM for using gcc. Like someone else said, they could have done something a decade ago but didn't - because they are waiting on a deep pocket to buy them out.

Another thing that gripes me is their harping on "we own Unix". They act like they rewrote history just by buying out some old trademarks. If I bought the rights to the name "Daimler-Benz" it doesn't mean I could claim I invented the automobile. They got some moldy old licenses and trademarks that have been diluted over the past 35 years, now they're using the recent wave of "intellectual property" publicity to try to cash in on the greed.

i just hope that all these goes over fast and quick...it's kinda giving me the wet blanket...I'm just quite turn off by such news...hmm...got a questions...what's everyone feeling on this issue?? i what's everyone feeling on this issue??

while...imagine...the linux distro had been such fast paced...till now...it's already in 9.0! but now...seems like everything need to put on hold....I can see bill's bright teeth now...

What's been put on hold? Alan Cox is still putting out daily kernel patches, www.gentoo.org just released a LiveCD with Americas Army, yesterday Red Hat released an updated kernel because they found a DOS flaw in the 2.4...what has stooped again?

No one is really worried about what SCO is doing, they are in their death thrawls and it will all be over soon.

If SCO distributes OpenLinux under GPL, doesn't that mean that ANY code included in that is released under GPL, thus bringing it into the public domain?

Public domain, no? However, if SCO continued to distribute the code after the found it, in the OpenLinux distro and under the GPl it would be GPL'd code.

i just find all these rather crazy..it's opensource..

You seem to be confuse about what this discussion is about. Please go back and read up on how SCO's IP supposedly made it's way into various portions of GNU/Linux.

What is stopping SCO from taking some code from the kernel and placing it in Unix, thus saying that the code is rightfully theirs?

There are numerous ways to check the truthfulness of these statements. One is to check for the code in previous releases. The other is to look for examples of the code at kernel development sites. SCO has stated that the Linux kernel is not being examined. Rather various other portion of the GNU and libraries said to have been copied. Please keep in mind the difference between Linux as a kernel and Linux as a common name for the entire OS.

I think the key to shutting their mouth is the fact that they released a Linux distro

If and only if they release their distro containing the code in question and released that code under the GPL (or claimed that the entire package was GPL'd).

Caldera released the old Unix source code under the GPL

According to the article it was released under the original BSD license.

Social Engineering Specialist
Because the is no patch for human stupidity

Originally posted by El_Cu_Guy If and only if they release their distro containing the code in question and released that code under the GPL (or claimed that the entire package was GPL'd).

It wouldn't matter in the case of the kernel. If they released a Linux distro, it would have to include a kernel, which would have to be a GPL release even if they modified it - the beauty of the GPL. Therefore, if they ever claim that their code is in the kernel, that code specifically would be released by the GPL simply because it would be "along for the ride" with the other GPL'ed code in the kernel. They freely accepted these terms if they distributed a Linux distro with any form of Linus' kernel. To distribute GPL software - even if your code is mixed in with it - is to accept and be bound by the GPL, even if you didn't explicitly state that your contribution was released under it.

To be fair, I'm not clear whether they are including the kernel in their rant - it's not very cohesive to begin with. But they seem to insinuate that the crime has been perpetrated far and wide, in all aspects of Linux and F/OS Unix software.

What's been put on hold? Alan Cox is still putting out daily kernel patches, www.gentoo.org just released a LiveCD with Americas Army, yesterday Red Hat released an updated kernel because they found a DOS flaw in the 2.4...what has stooped again?

maybe I'm still ignorant in the linux community...but who is Alan Cox?and what about Americas Army???who are they???

It wouldn't matter in the case of the kernel. If they released a Linux distro, it would have to include a kernel, which would have to be a GPL release even if they modified it - the beauty of the GPL.

SCO has never claimed their code was in the kernel. They are using Linux as a common name for the entire OS as well as various distributions. Perhaps GNU (the system) would have been a better choice? SCO has stated that their lawsuit does not involve the kernel (yet). They could still claim as much.

If SCO code were inserted into the kernel by a non-SCO party it would be in violation. Also let's not forget the difintion of UNIX (not Unix). It's system which can use various kernels. Only if SCO released this code as well would it become GPL'd.

Social Engineering Specialist
Because the is no patch for human stupidity

in terms of legalities?

Originally posted by El_Cu_Guy SCO Perhaps GNU (the system) would have been a better choice?

so technically speaking GNU/Hurd is also in trouble?

-----

come to think of it if its just the sysem tools (i take this to mean alot of the command line things like grep and cat and wget) is that such a bad thing ? after reading the Unix Haters Guide (for another perspective and food for thought... it can never hurt teo hear criticism) couldn't linux use a fresh more organized set of tools? the book specifically mentions some redundant commands, csimilar commands with wildly different syntax, and some commands that take on to much. it seems like if we had to ditch the otd tools it might be a bit of a hassle (scripts could be preserved through symbolic links and alias commands), and it would take some readjusting (more for knowbies than newbies ) but wouildn't it be better in the long run?

Thursday, McBride said the company, formed when the former Caldera Systems bought the rights to Unix software products from the old Santa Cruz Operation in 2001, had in recent months hired consulting software engineers who found that the Linux kernel contains "lines and blocks" of Unix source code. "Linux is an unauthorized derivative of our Unix source code," he says.

So SCO is, in fact claiming that the kernel is part of the problem.

If SCO code were inserted into the kernel by a non-SCO party it would be in violation.

Here's my point - yes, you are correct, that's a violation. But if SCO then releases that exact code in their own distribution, they are - intentionally or not - releasing that very code under the GPL by the fact that it is part of the kernel. The fact that it was a violation becomes irrelevant, because by releasing it they are saying they are okay with it being open source now.

It's like giving someone a wrapped gift and saying "Here is a present - everything in this box is yours forevermore." But then you realize that your wife accidently put your wallet in the box before she wrapped it. Tough - you gave it away freely whether you knew it was in the box or not. Moral: SCO should have looked inside the box more closely before they gave it away.

Excerpted from an interview at VNUnet.com with SCO's Senior Vice President Chris Sontag:

[VNU]: Finally. Somebody raised a possible problem that you yourselves distribute the infringing code under the GPL licence. Do you see that as a problem from your point of view?
[Sontag]:No we do not, because you do not have an infringement issue when you are providing customers with products that have your intellectual property in them.

[VNU]:OK, but Linux has a kernel which isn't yours. Are you saying that there are changes to the kernel?
[Sontag]:We have concerns and issues even with areas of the kernel.

[VNU]:So you are saying that you are happy distributing the kernel because the offending code belongs to you anyway, as I understand it?
[Sontag]:Yes.

Apparently this guy needs to read the GPL. Sontag freely admits that the kernel contains SCO code, but it's perfectly okay for them to distribute a Linux kernel because it's their property. With these three statements above he essentially says that any SCO code in the kernel is now freely distributable under the GPL - no matter how it got in there. If they distribute a Linux kernel, it has to be under the GPL, unless they stripped all mention of the GPL from their distro. In that case, they are in violation, because they are stealing the work of those who did contribute under the GPL.